A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Get flu, get spine adjusted? (also: college vaccination fraud)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 13th 04, 05:42 PM
Todd Gastaldo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Get flu, get spine adjusted? (also: college vaccination fraud)

GET FLU, GET SPINE ADJUSTED? My adjustment of a young child years ago
caused me to start getting MY spine adjusted whenever I feel the flu coming.
I think adjusting helps in infectious disease - no proof - I think it does
though. See below...

"RELIGIOUS" VACCINATION EXEMPTION IN OREGON?

IT'S EASY! See the very end of my 1995 Open Letter to FREDRICK C. COLLEY,
MPH, PhD of Western States Chiropractic College below...

OREGON COLLEGE STUDENTS - if you want a "religious" exemption - just sign
your name! See the very end of this post...

First this...

In 1993, Leonard A. Kutnik, MD of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
received an interesting letter from an interesting chiropractic patient,
Helen Rodriguez-Trias, M.D., president of the American Public Health
Association (APHA)...

In response to Dr. Kutnik's concern that "current law does not restrict
chiropractors from performing spinal manipulations on very sick, febrile
children," APHA president Rodriguez-Trias wrote to Dr. Kutnik: "Limitations
of practice, especially when applied to common and impossible to monitor
conditions such as 'infectious diseases' are at best only very partial
safeguards against ignorance and at worst total hoaxes to the public." [May
22, 1993 letter Rodriguez-Trias to Kutnik, submitted to California's Office
of Administrative Law]

SPEAKING OF TOTAL HOAXES to the public...

COLLEGE VACCINATION FRAUD:

MITCH HASS, DC (Oregon Public Health Association): I haven't heard back yet
regarding my recent request that you guys do something about the State of
Oregon engaging in obviously fraudulent vaccination promotion that endangers
some vaccinated persons during disease outbreaks...

See Fraudulent college vaccine promotion by State of Oregon
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2461

MITCH HAAS, DC: Did Fred Colley, PhD, MPH (see below) ever show you a copy
of my letter below? Please act to stop the obviously fraudulent vaccination
promotion that endangers some vaccinated persons during disease outbreaks.

Again Mitch, the vaccination promotion fraud isn't the only MD crime...

Among other crimes, MDs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30% - and
KEEPING THEM CLOSED when babies' shoulders get stuck!
See Difference between God and an MD?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2438

See also: Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2256

And see: Helping baby open birth canal (Why obstetrics is criminal medical
CAM)...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2391

It's a matter of CHIROPRACTIC PREVENTION (non-spinal prevention) - saving
tiny lives and tiny limbs and PREVENTING the
putative chiropractic clinicial entity (vertebral subluxation)...


GET FLU, GET SPINE ADJUSTED?

Buddy Touchinsky apparently does not agree that the spine should be
adjusted - maybe he's right...

Buddy says:

"Get the flu, go to an MD. Hurt your back, or have some type of joint pain,
go see the chiro."

Buddy is a student intern at New York Chiropractic College/NYCC, a
subscriber to both the censored and uncensored versions of chirolist.

I thought just like Buddy thinks when I graduated from Los Angeles College
of Chiropractic/LACC...

I thought spinal adjusting couldn't help in cases of infectious disease -
chiros only help back pain, neck pain, headaches, etc.

Knock on wood - I haven't had the flu in years.

Nowadays though, whenever I suffer flu symptoms, I ALWAYS go for a
chiropractic adjustment.

I do so because of a young child that I RELUCTANTLY adjusted years ago...

That child had symptoms of what looked to me like infectious disease - so I
advised his mother to go to the MD-pediatrician - I told her that spinal
adjusting likely would not help...

She refused. She agreed to take her child to the MD-pediatrician AFTER I
adjusted him...

For the amazing thing that happened..

See the postcript of the following letter...

NOTE #1: I am NOT saying here that spinal adjusting cures all febrile
disease. I think my spinal adjusting of that child - or something related
to the interaction I had with mother and child - DID cure this case - almost
instantly. I would still recommend that mothers take their children to the
MD-pediatrician in cases of febrile disease. Perhaps eventually
chiropractic physicians and MD-pediatricians will be working together.

NOTE #2: Fredrick C. Colley, MPH, PhD, the addressee below, co-authored with
the abovementioned MITCH HAAS, DC a flawed paper on vaccination which is
discussed...

NOTE #3: The story of my adjustment of the young child is in the
postscript...

October 28, 1995

Fredrick C. Colley, MPH, PhD
Professor
Western States Chiropractic College
2900 NE 132nd Ave.
Portland, OR 97230-3099

Dear Professor Colley,

A belated thank you for your speedy reply some time ago to my telephone
inquiry.
I had called to request a copy of the San Diego Union immunization
advertisement mentioned in your December 1994 JMPT article, "Attitudes on
Immunization: A Survey of American Chiropractors" (co-authored with Mitch
Haas, DC).

Your package arrived the day after I telephoned. Incredible response time.

I did indeed find interesting the two articles you enclosed, Nelson [1993]
and Anderson [1990], which were referenced in your 1994 JMPT article, a
reprint of which you also kindly enclosed.

Regarding the San Diego Union immunization advertisement I requested,
someday I hope to obtain it, as you did, by pursuing an interlibrary loan.

Regarding your 1994 JMPT article, I invite your attention to several
significant inaccuracies.

On p. 587 you (and Dr. Haas) referred to "new regulations" that were
proposed and passed in California; yet one of the "new regulations" to which
you referred was never proposed, and another lapsed because it did not pass
muster with California's Office of Administrative Law.

You and Dr. Haas wrote (misleadingly):

"The debate escalated into legislative action in the form of three emergency
regulations adopted by the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners on
July 29, 1993...These regulations were in direct response to a newspaper
advertisement placed in a San Diego newspaper by a group of local
chiropractors. The advertisment advised parents that it was not necessary
to immunize their children...The new regulations make it unprofessional
conduct for chiropractors practicing in California to advertise or to
actually substitute a spinal manipulation for vaccination, to treat a
patient for a communicable disease, or to advise parents not to immunize
their children.

According to the references section of your 1994 paper, the title of the
San Diego Union advertisement in question was, "Is Immunization Mandatory?"
This question would imply that the advertisement advised parents that
according to California law it is not mandatory to immunize one's child -
which statement is entirely correct.

Your text, on the other hand (p. 587; quoted above), indicates that the
advertisement advised parents that it was not necessary to immunize their
children, an entirely different assertion, which to my mind constitutes the
practice of medicine by the D.C.s who placed the ad - which is why I called
to ask for a copy of the ad.

Your text also states that in "direct response" to the advertisement,
"legislative action" resulted in three new regulations. One of the new
regulations, according to your text, made it unprofessional conduct to
"advise parents not to immunize their children."
No such regulation ever came into effect - emergency or otherwise.

Indeed, no such regulation was ever proposed and publicly noticed for
hearings, the probable reason for this being, as alluded to above, that
D.C.s practice under a limited statutory exception to the medical practice
statute. D.C.s who do not hold medical licenses are illegally practicing
medicine when they advise parents not to submit their children to accepted
medical practices.

Nor is there a new regulation making it unprofessional conduct for
California D.C.s to "treat a patient for a communicable or infectious
disease." You and Dr. Haas apparently combined two separate emergency
regulations - which did come into effect for a short time - but which
ultimately did not pass muster with California's Office of Administrative
Law (OAL).

Your comment that, "The debate escalated into legislative action in the
form of three emergency regulations," also needs clarification.

California's Chiropractic Act is an initiative act of the People. It may
be changed only at the ballot box. It may NOT be changed by the
Legislature, via legislation or regulation. More pointedly, neither the
Legislature nor medical trade unions (nor chiropractic trade unions) may
pressure the Chiropractic Board into changing the Chiropractic Act by
regulation - which is what was attempted.

At a public meeting of the Health Committee of the California Assembly,
Committee chair Assemblyman Burt Margolin held up a copy of the March 22,
1993 Wall Street Journal which, as you stated in your article, "described as
unethical pediatric practices, including discouraging immunization, by some
chiropractors."

Assemblyman Margolin was outraged. He reportedly threatened to place a
measure on the ballot to abolish the Chiropractic Board. He also reportedly
agreed that he might be satisfied if the Chiropractic Board passed
regulations.

Margolin ignored testimony by Chiropractic Board executive director Vivian
Davis that the Chiropractic Board had not received ANY complaints that D.C.s
were purporting to substitute spinal adjustments for vaccinations. (Again,
this is why I asked if you had a copy of the San Diego Union advertisement.
If the D.C.s said in their ad that parents should not immunize children, it
would seem fairly easy to prosecute them for practicing medicine without a
license.)

At a subsequent public meeting, the Chiropractic Board voted on - and
passed - emergency regulations making it unprofessional conduct for D.C.s to
treat infectious or communicable diseases, at which point Julia
Bertschinger, a member of the public, spoke up to say she did not want the
Board to deny her the right to use her chiropractor to treat infectious
disease. Bertschinger said the board appeared to be caving in to
Assemblyman Margolin's "blackmail" - his threat to pass legislation to place
on the ballot a measure to abolish the Chiropractic Board. [Bertschinger J.
Personal communication 1993]

Board counsel and deputy attorney general Joel Primes agreed that it looked
like blackmail and the Board immediately reversed itself, voting down the
emergency infectious disease regulation it had just passed. [Bertschinger
J. Personal communication 1993]

At a subsequent meeting, after testimony from the California Chiropractic
Association (CCA), the Board reversed itself (again) and passed the
emergency regulation making it unprofessional conduct for D.C.'s to treat
infectious diseases.

Then the Board itself was reversed. As noted above, both the infectious
disease regulation and a communicable disease regulation were reversed by
the Office of Administrative Law (OAL); though OAL did allow the third
regulation mentioned in your article (Section 317(w) of Title 16 of the
California Code of Regulations), which states that "the offer, advertisment,
or substitution of a spinal manipulation for vaccination" constitutes
unprofessional conduct.

Again, according to Vivian Davis, executive director of the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners, there was never any evidence that California D.C.s
were offering to substitute spinal adjustments in lieu of vaccinations.

If the San Diego D.C.s offered spinal adjustments in lieu of vaccinations,
then your article was correct. If San Diego D.C.s did not do this, your
article was misleading on a key point - the very key point perhaps that made
Assemblyman Margolin's antics look to you like "legislative action" instead
of regulatory blackmail. In essence, Assemblyman Margolin subverted both
the doctrine of informed consent (see below) and our Constitutional right to
freedom of speech.

That the Board of Chiropractic examiners and a chiropractic trade union
caved-in and tried to placate this pro-medical legislator by regulatorily
subverting an initiative act of the People is another concern.

Fortunately, OAL was there. The system worked.

Kind regards,

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.

P.S. I am not certain as to the specific reasons why OAL rejected the
emergency infectious disease regulations.

OAL was created because regulatory agencies were perceived to be
regulatorily subverting legislative intent - drowning legislation with
interminable regulations that sometimes contradicted legislative intent.
The OAL legislation made it possible for any California citizen to request
addition, modification or repeal of any regulation - and elicit a response
from the relevant agency within 30 days.

Perhaps OAL rejected the emergency infectious disease regulations because
someone furnished OAL copies of correspondence between Dr. Leonard A. Kutnik
of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and Helen Rodriguez-Trias, M.D.,
president of the American Public Health Association (APHA).

In response to Dr. Kutnik's concern that "current law does not restrict
chiropractors from performing spinal manipulations on very sick, febrile
children," APHA president Rodriguez-Trias wrote to Dr. Kutnik: "Limitations
of practice, especially when applied to common and impossible to monitor
conditions such as 'infectious diseases' are at best only very partial
safeguards against ignorance and at worst total hoaxes to the public." [May
22, 1993 letter Rodriguez-Trias to Kutnik]

Kutnik had written to Dr. Rodriguez-Trias because she had written
Assemblyman Burt Margolin to oppose his proposal to legislatively prohibit
D.C.'s from treating infectious disease.

Dr. Kutnik said in his letter that neither he nor any of his colleagues knew
of any research in regard to treating infectious disease with spinal
adjusting.

Dr. Rodriguez-Trias responded by sending Dr. Kutnik two scholarly papers on
the subject of treating infectious disease with spinal adjusting. She also
sent Dr. Kutnik the address and telephone number of Anthony L. Rosner,
Ph.D., director of research for the Foundation for Chiropractic Education
and Research (FCER).

I do not know if Dr. Kutnik ever responded to Dr. Rodriguez-Trias.

My own personal experience accords with Dr. Rodriguez' response to Dr.
Kutnik.

I once adjusted a very sick, febrile child. The mother, a long-time
patient, was desperate. Her baby was completely limp. Mucous was flowing
copiously from his nose. Periodically, he would launch into high pitched
screams. I have never forgotten those screams.

Having been trained to focus primarily on possible orthopedic benefits of
spinal adjusting, I told the mother that spinal adjustments probably would
not help her baby. I advised her to go immediately to her pediatrician.

She refused.

I finally agreed to adjust the boy, but made the mother promise that she
would take him to the pediatrician afterward - regardless of whether he got
better.

Within five minutes of his adjustment, this little boy, who had been
alternately lethargic and screaming pitifully for hours, was running around
the house playing.

This is anecdote to be sure, but the mother was convinced that my adjustment
had done wonders; and I must confess my own suspicion in this regard.

Since fever is a physiological response, a fever would only "break" after an
adjustment, spinal or otherwise - if what was being adjusted was noxiously
irritating the nervous system.

It is possible that the mother was noxiously irritating her infant's nervous
system with her psyche, i.e., with her extreme concern and intense belief
that the boy would only get better if I adjusted his spine. (Chiropractic
adjusting to relieve noxious psychic irritation is usually thought to be a
process of education - the founder called the only book he ever published
The Chiropractor's Adjuster - but it is possible that mothers and children
unconsciously communicate psychically through "anomolous cognition." )

By adjusting the baby's spine, I may have relieved noxious psychic
irritation emanating from the mother. This hypothesis, however strange, is
in accord with the central hypothesis of chiropractic, which holds that
disease and vertebral subluxations (which latter have been hypothesized to
exist and to perpetuate disease) are caused by environmental irritation of
the nervous system by noxious mechanical, chemical and/or psychic irritants.
(See the definition of chiropractic in the 1987 and 1994, 27th and 28th,
editions of Dorland's Ilustrated Medical Dictionary.)

Then again, perhaps it is more likely that my low amplitude, high velocity
thrust at T12 (which resulted in a distinctly audible release) actually
relieved noxious mechanical irritation of the baby's nervous system. Or
perhaps my adjustment was itself a noxious mechanical irritant that "reset"
the nervous system. Or perhaps noxious irritation of the nervous system by
spinal structures or by spinal adjusting has nothing to do with disease.
(Why did I use a low amplitude, high velocity thrust, and why did I direct
it at T12? Because the founder of chiropractic adjusted similarly and wrote
that T12 is the most frequently subluxated vertebra.)

For that mother, mechanism didn't matter. Her baby got better soon after my
attempts at psychically and mechanically adjusting them both. Again quoting
Dr. Rodriguez-Trias' letter to Dr. Kutnik: "Limitations of practice,
especially when applied to common and impossible to monitor conditions such
as 'infectious diseases' are at best only very partial safeguards against
ignorance and at worst total hoaxes to the public." [May 22, 1993 letter
Rodriguez-Trias to Kutnik]

BEGIN April 13, 2004 ADDENDUM


Charles L. Blum, DC wrote on the Dubin-Zaleski censored version of
chirolist:

"I have seldom found a chiropractor who while attempting to find [vertebral
subluxation] epidemiologically or attempting to give it standardization,
still had no problem finding it on a patient, treating it, and having the
patient have a positive outcome.

"The research has not caught up yet but that will be approximately 10-20
years, as the foundation is built. I am not sure that we need to all throw
our subluxation eggs in the chiropractic basket but the research has not
shown that we should throw our subluxation eggs out with the baby's
bathwater. Lack of evidence is not always evidence of lack. Something is
going on and we need to be open and investigative. That means not being too
closed so that we pigeon hole chiropractic or too open that we can't keep [a
medically-oriented DC's] brains from falling out... a worthy, difficult, and
noble task. I have some duct tape, just in case, that I carry around."

Charles L. Blum, DC
Santa Monica, CA

www.soto-usa.org

The abovementioned Buddy Touchinsky wrote:

"What if the manipulation is the important part of the equation here, and
not the removal of subluxations. If you think about it, it makes some
sense. Why does so many different techniques 'work'? Why do studies showing
the benefits of manipulation make no mention of being specific to subluxated
segments? It may just be a matter of loosing up a general area of
'fixation'. Or maybe its sensory input from the manipulation that does the
trick. Kinda like accupuncture, get the Qi flowing.

"This may anger some chiros, but I don't see why. If the existence of
subluxations is a possibility they wish to consider, than this must fall
right up there as another possibility. Ignoring it would be admitting that
you follow the dogma of the Palmers..."

GASTALDO remarks - maybe "vertebral subluxation" will be seen as a
heuristic - an aid to discovery of what is happening when the spine is
manipulated. I do think something happens in the spine - I don't think it's
"just" placebo - though that's a possibility - just like much of the work of
drugs is "just" placebo - or so say some researchers.

END April 13, 2004 ADDENDUM



I must remark on the paper by C. Nelson [1993] a copy of which which you
kindly enclosed with your letter.

I found Dr. Nelson's analysis most interesting; though I do not agree with
his exhortation that D.C.s should blindly promote vaccination (an
exhortation which you and Dr. Haas seem to have echoed in the pages of
JMPT).

I do, however, agree with Dr. Nelson that that Argument #5 against
vaccination is the strongest argument - not against vaccination - but
against mandatory vaccination.
Dr. Nelson's Argument #5 - "Any compulsory medical treatment is
unacceptable...the freedom to refuse treatment...is a fundamental right" -
is, of course, just a restatement of the now well-settled doctrine of
informed consent restated by the California Supreme Court in the 1993 case
of Daniel Thor v. The Superior Court of Solano County 93 C.D.O.S. 5658:

"[O]ver two decades ago, Justice Mosk reiterated...'[A] person of adult
years and in sound mind has the right, in the exercise of control over his
body, to determine whether or not to submit to lawful medical treatment.'
(Cobbs v. Grant (1972 8 Cal.3d 229, 242.)" [Thor at 5658]"

"The common law has long recognized this principle: A physician who
performs any medical procedure without the patient's consent commits a
battery irrespective of the skill or care used." [Thor at 5659]

"As a corollary, the law...has evolved the doctrine of informed consent":
(See Cobbs v. Grant, supra, [citation]) "Under this doctrine, 'the patient
must have the capacity to reason and make judgments, the decision must be
made voluntarily and without coercion, and the patient must have a clear
understanding of the risks and benefits of the proposed treament
alternatives or non treatment, along with a full understanding of the nature
of the disease and the prognosis.' [Citations.]" (Rasmussen v. Fleming,
supra, 154 Ariz. 207 [741 P.2d at p. 683].) [Thor at 5659]

This brings me back to the San Diego D.C.s mentioned in your article. I
suspect they were advising parents of the fact that vaccination is not
mandatory - and the reasons it might be beneficial to take advantage of this
fact.

Most D.C.s focus on the welfare of their patients. Some, however, focus on
the welfare of the chiropractic profession, as in your statement that
"[c]ontinued opposition to immunization...supported by scientific evidence
may become a significant obstacle to the assimilation of the chiropractic
profession into the revised health care system" (p. 589).

Your statement is false for various reasons.

First, your own survey indicated that most D.C.s continue their opposition
to MANDATORY immunization. ("Eighty-one percent felt that immunization
should be strictly voluntary." p. 585) This is quite different from
opposing immunization.

Second, continued chiropractic opposition to mandatory immunization is
already an obstacle to assimilation into "the revised health care system."
Most people agree that the key players in revising the health care system
are the same key players that installed the previous health care system -
unscientifically.

Third, there is wide recognition in the chiropractic profession that the
antigen-antibody reaction stimulated by vaccination mimics the same reaction
stimulated by natural disease. Your own survey indicated that 66% of D.C.s
did not agree that there is "no scientific proof that immunization prevents
disease."

You may be accurate in your perception that dogmatic support for universal
immunization is the price D.C.s must pay for ensuring their incomes under
managed care. But you are not accurate in your conclusion that D.C.s who
oppose mandatory/universal immunization have taken a position that is not
"consistent with the weight of scientific evidence."

You and Dr. Haas might be interested to know that, the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC/Skip Wolf) has, in writing, granted my request that the CDC put
back in the CDC's Parents' Guide to Immunization the statement that the
decision to vaccinate is for the parents, alone, to make.

While it is nice that Skip Wolf agreed to change the Guide, I find it
strange that the CDC believes it unnecessary to include this simple
statement everywhere it advertises vaccination.

As a result of the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act, millions of "Vaccine
Information Sheets" were shipped in October 1994, according to Sharon
Humiston, M.D., author of the sheets. When I objected that the sheets don't
mention that vaccination is an option in many states, Dr. Humiston inferred
that no one had asked that such information be included on the sheets,
assuring me that she composed the vaccine information sheets on behalf of
the CDC - with input of many groups - including anti-vaccination groups.
She told me that "15 attorneys" looked at the sheets; this in response to my
point that Kathi Williams of Dissatisfied Parents Together had told me that
her group had formally asked that the vaccine information sheets inform
parents of the vaccine exemption laws, but had been denied. [The
information in this paragraph came from personal communications with Judy
Gant of CDC and Sharon Humiston, M.D. of the University of Rochester 1994,
Dec. 11 and 13, respectively.]

Kathi Williams' statement on behalf of Dissatisfied Parents Together - that
CDC mention of vaccine exemptions had been requested - was verified by
Kristine M. Severyn, R.Ph., Ph.D. of Ohio Parents for Vaccine Safety, 251 W.
Ridgeway Dr., Dayton, OH 45459.

According to Dr. Severyn's newsletter, as of July 5, 1994, the government's
vaccine-injury and death compensation program (P.L. 99-660) had paid out
$452.5 million dollars, with 2,600 cases backlogged - and only one in three
persons received compensation. Since P.L. 99-660 prohibits U.S. citizens
from suing drug companies until they have been denied compensation, it is
interesting to note, says Dr. Severyn, that the two out of three persons who
filed but did not receive compensation are at the mercy of case law that
holds that people can't recover damages because vaccines are "unavoidably
unsafe."

Dr. Humiston's "15 attorneys" (see above) are up to no good. Perusal of the
CDC/Humiston vaccine information sheet for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR)
turns up this yet to be proved statement: "The risks from the vaccine are
much smaller [original italics] than the risks from the diseases if people
stopped using vaccine." The fact is, we just don't know that vaccine risks
are "much smaller" than natural disease - and we will never know as long as
M.D.s keep refusing to report serious adverse events.

The MMR Vaccine Information Sheet also states that, "As with any medicine,
there are very small risks." This implies that "any other medicine" carries
"very small risks," which is yet another unsubstantiated "15 attorney" CDC
claim. The FDA commissioner himself (David Kessler, M.D.) recently stated,
"Only about 1% of serious events are reported to the FDA, according to one
study" - which means that "any other medicine" might actually be quite
risky. Since the CDC itself compared vaccine risk with the risk of "any
other medicine," vaccines might be just as risky as "any other medicine" -
which statement is just as worthless as the CDC/Humiston "very small risks"
statement. We cannot possibly find out how much risk exists until
physicians meet their obligation to report serious adverse reactions to ALL
the noxious substances they foist onto the public. FDA Commissioner Kessler
instructed physicians in 1993, "If an adverse event occurs in perhaps one in
5000 or even one in 1000 users, it could be missed in clinical trials but
pose a serious safety problem when released to the market." [Kessler DA.
Introducing MEDWatch: a new approach to reporting medication and device
adverse effects and product problems. JAMA (Jun2)1993;269(21):2765-68]

I could tell from my conversation with Dr. Humiston that she is very
sincerely committed to vaccination - particularly to Hemophilus b influenza
(Hib) vaccination. I noted that even if the Hib vaccine (or any other
vaccine) has been proven safe and effective in outcome studies (I don't
believe Hib has been proven safe and effective; see Scheibner [1993], cited
below), American parents think that their children can't attend school
without vaccination. I noted further that the doctrine of informed consent
mandates that parents be informed that children CAN attend school without
vaccination in many states.

Dr. Humiston agreed that parents should be informed if their state has a
vaccine exemption law, but she refused to write a letter to this effect - to
me or anyone else. She said information about vaccine exemptions, "might be
taken out of context and might ultimately hurt the vaccination effort."

I have concluded from this mess that, for every Ph.D. there is an equal but
opposite Ph.D.; and that parents should have access to the opinions of
vaccine promoters like Dr. Humiston, as well as the opinions of those Ph.D.s
who vehemently oppose vaccination. For instance, parents should have access
to the opinion of Australian scientist Vera Scheibner, who writes:

"[T]here is no evidence whatsoever that vaccines of any kind - especially
those against childhood diseases - are effective in preventing the
infectious diseases they are supposed to prevent. Further, adverse effects
are amply documented and are far more significant to public health than any
adverse effects of infectious diseases.
"Immunisations, including those practiced on babies, not only did not
prevent any infectious diseases, they caused more suffering and more deaths
than has any other human activity in the entire history of medical
intervention...All vaccination should cease forthwith and all victims of
their side-effects should be appropriately compensated." [Schieber V.
Vaccination Dr. Viera Scheibner, 178 Govetts Leap Road, Blackheath, NSW 2785
AUSTRALIA 1993]

Immunization doesn't just harm children. Wolf and Gant's superior at CDC,
Walter Orenstein, M.D., co-authored a 1981 rubella study in JAMA which
reported that 90% of obstetricians refused to take their own rubella
vaccine. Dr. Orenstein may be interested in the address of the Chronic
Rubella Viremia Support Group, South 20655 Brown Rd., Cataldo ID 83810,
(208) 689-3925, a group of over 200 health care professionals that submitted
to rubella vaccination and ended up with chronic debilitating symptoms
attributable to rubella vaccine. The founder of the group, Katy Fox, RN,
suspects that many other health professionals were adversely affected by the
rubella vaccine. When 20/20 did a story on the subject, over 600 people
responded.

Does the State of Oregon offer parents even minimal information necessary to
give an informed consent? No. In fact, one of the state's vaccination
promotion advertisment says, "Yes, School Law requires that they be
immunized," but says nothing about the fact that the same School Law has an
exemption which makes vaccination an option. [See "Some boo-boos, a kiss can
't fix" The Oregonian (Apr10)1995:A12]

State epidemiologist David Fleming, M.D. agreed that at the very least,
Oregon parents should be informed of the exemption to the "School Law" -
whenever the "School Law" is used as a cattle prod in the vaccination
effort, i.e., in newspaper ads or otherwise.

Dr. Fleming did not seem concerned that Oregon's vaccine exemption is termed
a "religious" exemption, and that most people erroneously believe they
cannot exempt their children unless the church they attend is opposed to
vaccination.

So prevalent is this belief that Oregonian science writer
Janet Filips failed to mention Oregon's exemption when she described
"Exclusion Day - the day when students whose shot records are not up to date
are barred from school..." [Filips J. More than books. The Oregonian
(Sep6)1995:B1]

THE OREGONIAN IS FAILING TO INFORM PARENTS HOW "EASY" IT IS TO EXEMPT THEIR
CHILDREN FROM VACCINATION

When I called Ms. Filips to point out that Oregon Health Division regulation
OAR 333-19-021(23) defines "religion" broadly, as "any system of beliefs,
practices or ethical values," Ms. Filips told me that she didn't mention the
religious exemption in her article because school officials told her that
people who can take the religious exemption "know who they are." She said
she would mention the religious exemption in future articles, but that she
would NOT tell readers that parents can use "any system of beliefs" to
lawfully exempt their child from vaccination. She even refused to simply
quote OAR 333-19-021(23) to assist parents in understanding what the state
means by religion.

At my request, Ms. Filips referred me to Oregonian editor Bob Caldwell, 1320
SW Broadway, Portland OR 97201, who repeated Ms. Filips's belief that it is
reasonable for the Oregonian not to inform Oregon parents that they can
lawfully exempt their children from vaccination using "any system of
beliefs." [OAR 333-19-021(23)]

ALL PARENTS HAVE TO DO IS SIGN THEIR NAME IN THE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION BLOCK!

END Open Letter to Fredrick C. Colley, MPH, PhD of Western States

Chiropractic College

COLLEGE STUDENTS CAN DO THE SAME THING...

See again: Fraudulent college vaccine promotion by State of Oregon
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2461

Thanks for reading, everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vagina-related insurance fraud (Dan Fitz. at The Hartford, you're removed) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 November 1st 03 05:20 PM
Vaccination is NOT immunization/Breastfeeding *is* immunization! Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 30 October 6th 03 09:16 PM
VACCINATION SUBLUXATION! (Thimerosal: Sen Frist subluxating VICA) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 September 15th 03 09:19 PM
Parents spoofed by school vaccination programs (also: Chiro and hypertension) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 September 11th 03 10:49 PM
Exclusion Day vaccination fraud (Manzullo via [email protected]) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 August 25th 03 08:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.